Chili

Well yes, if he is in charge of the tribes destiny it is foolish to think that the wants other gods before him. You must remember here Johnny that life itself belongs to the mythology and not to us. I actually do not read the bible and when I am lead to a passage I read it with interest. But I did read the NT to see what Christianity was all about.

It has a greater validity in Christendom because it speaks on behalf of Christianity as the end of Catholicism and not Deism or native American religions. I am not discussing the OT and never read past Gen. 3 to say much about it.

If other groups have their own testament it will testify on their behalf, which is not my behalf or they would not be other groups. If they had no religious writings I do not see how you can say that they have a testament that testified. Jn.5:39-40 is clear on this and therefore includes the difference between the OT and the NT.

No, the NT is not more valid than the OT or any other group that has a testimonial in place. It is just that the NT is our way.In Catholicism our life is just the unfolding of indoctrinated values. No bait to follow except the concept sin that makes the forbidden fruit sweeter.

No genetic code to deal with if we are in charge of our own destiny with the Infallible pope as our silver back. According to Golding "it is as easy as eating and drinking" and James Joyce
shows how it is done on the last page of his "Portrait" where after the count down of forty days he goes underground on April 27 to rise again on May 1.

See how easy it is and how prolific we are?
That is a bad sign because he was a grey wolf in sheep's clothing.But I do and we never discussed the bible.

Johnny Skeptic

Then all groups of people can enjoy a comfortable eternal life, right?

Do you have any reasonable proof that Jesus actually healed people, fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish, and died for the sins of mankind?

Wads4

So then if all those splinter groups are wrong-as I thought,--what version is correct, and how do you know it is correct?

Chili

You mean after they get buried when their testament comes into force?

I think the gospel message is to get buried after our second death and be raised after our first with eternal life beginning at our resurrection . . . for which the conversion of our mental assets must take place so they might be raised and we do not get to heaven empty handed (Rev.14:13).

No, he died for the sins of his world and showed us how to do the same for the sins of our world.

Chili

The first split was after Jesus broke bread in Jn.6:66 and that is why apostolic tradition tells us on which side of the fence you are on. Notice that both sides have apostolic tradition except that the splinter groups can trace theirs on the anathema side of the Church.

If you do not think that this is so we know on which side of the fence you are on.

Chili

Forgot to tell you that in Catholicism bible passages are like yeast added to bread and we do not want that. Every Sunday the wafer reminds of this. We actually think that the Gutenberg press was a giant yeast factory for that reason which kind of serves us well but from a different point of view.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes.

So the God of the Bible will give Buddhists and agnostics the same comfortable eternal life that Catholics will get, right?

Chili

. . . they rot? Where we have the Christ-mas as the final mass, Buddhism has the final
round of samsara for the 'stream-entrant' prior to Nirvana = our Purgatory prior to heaven. So yes Buddhism and Catholicism are much te same but I do not know 'the path' for agnostics. Maybe they just get buried?

I could add that our [final] Christ-mas is the culmination of the daily masses just as the final round of samsara is the culmination of their daily rounds of samsara. So yes, they seem to follow the same archetype.

Wads4

I was thinking more of the proliferation of protestant sects to date, since the reformation, rather than having a cause located in what Jesus did with his bread.

Sheshbazzar

It is a mistake to believe that every law that was written under Moses was obeyed, or even ever intended to be obeyed, these types of laws were written with the intent of changing the ways that people perceived their legal rights, and how that they ought to humanely treat one another.
No son having genuine love towards his own mother, would actually approve of her being executed for violating the Sabbath, And no mother having genuine love towards her son, would report him, or consent to his death.
It is popular to think the worst of Moses and these people based upon the laws that they appear to approve of regulate their lives, but that they did not in actuality perform.
Proof?
Moses invoked strict laws regarding the practice of circumcision, requiring every Israelite male to be circumcised, (Gen. 17:9-14, Ex. 12:43-49, Lev. 12:3) then for the next 40 years he BANNED any circumcision from being performed, (Joshua 5:2-7) and during that time the curses of the law were suspended for them being born, because in not being circumcised they were not 'under the law' but were 'exempt' from the law, whereas their fathers being in circumcision died in that wilderness.
See the great contrast between what Moses wrote and what he actually did or allowed to be carried out?
There are those laws which were written in The Book of the Law, and those Laws which are not written in the Book of The Law, and those Laws not written in a Book overrule those that were written in The Book of The Law.
If men be offended by The Laws written within The Book of the Law, let them therefore circumcise the foreskins of their hearts to obey the greater Law which is never written in books, but upon the hearts and the minds of sincere and loving people.